Interpretionary Scales: The Differences Between Franklin And Kosaki

There is little debate that before Roe, the conversation about abortion revolved around health, whereas after Roe, the conversation changed to rights. Vecera, in his research, proposed that before Roe, people referred to abortion as a decision between a woman and her physician. After Roe, abortion was a decision by a “lone woman” by the “solitude of her conscience” (Vecera 2014, pg. 361). Franklin and Kosaki also understand the significance of dividing opinions of abortion into two separate studies. The health scale Franklin and Kosaki study includes health, rape, and defect items. The discretionary scale includes poverty, unwed mother, and unwanted cases. Franklin and Kosaki would agree with Vecera in their reason for splitting up the two scales. Franklin and Kosaki analyze their data and conclude that “in the case of discretionary
759). According to their data, there was polarization in the discretionary scale and none in the health scale. Clearly, differentiating between discretionary and health matters. The same differentiation between health and discretionary scales applies to the right to die, or assisted suicide. The right to die refers to the right to let a person with a terminal illness commit assisted suicide, typically with medicine. A physician has to prescribe the patient with medicine and the patient has to be terminally ill, which a doctor determines is six months to live. A debate against the right to die is that it devalues life, similar to abortion. Many argue that it is not a right under the